person0

A few minutes ago I found myself wanting to react to a post with an 'astonished' face.😲  Sadly, the best alternative was the thumbs up / like button (😲), because when I clicked, I noticed an astonished reaction wasn't there! 😲 I have grown accustomed to using it in other messaging tools and am shocked (😲) that I have made it this far without begging for it! 
@pam, what do you think?  Would you be willing to give us this new reaction option?

But I do agree with person0's desire for other reaction options, especially "astonished" or "surprised".

I'm shocked. 😲 Shocked, I tell you. And also appalled. And outraged. I'm outraged. 😲 Behold the outrage upon my visage

Yep, a specific site that wants members to "think" are just this type of individuals. At least the ones who are in charge of the site. They are a prime example of this meme.

Burke has a (more-faithful-than-he) sister on Twitter who doesn’t think too highly of him.  Apparently Burke is quite the piece of work; there’s talk of him having made a perjured accusation of domestic violence against a parent or some such thing.

I think it is important to consider that (despite the fact that adherents may deny it) in reality, secularism and its modern associates are religions.  These religions are proselytized by their members.

I think it is not too farfetched to assume that Nephi intended the word "church" to include religious adherents, which would have included the worship of false gods and idols (in the myriad forms in which they present in society).

I think that the influence of the church of the devil is found wherever the philosophies of men are mingled with scripture.  It is most evident and explicit when such a mixture is used aggressively against the truth.  One way we frequently see this is when individuals (especially secular adherents) recite the passage, "Judge not, that ye be not judged"; while they may invoke scripture, usually, the true intention is to justify and coerce acquiescence to sin and evil.

Consider the parable of the ten virgins.  All ten knew of the bridegroom, were looking forward to his coming, and wanted to join him.  How could it be that, despite all being aware of his coming, only five of the virgins knew to have the oil and the other five didn't?  They all knew enough to have a lamp in the first place, enough to be there waiting, and even enough to recognize the call to go out to meet the bridegroom.  If they were aware of all that, it seems to me the only thing that could have impeded their preparation would be an "eat, drink, and be merry" attitude.  In the end, from the perspective of the bridegroom, would these five foolish virgins have been of the Church of God, or the church of the devil?  Who do the ten virgins represent? 

Perhaps, sadly, members of the church of the devil, and its influence, can be found everywhere in society, even mingling among the members of the Lord's Church.

I was not intending to use the tweet as an example of the parable of the ten virgins, only as an example of the fact that we can reasonably expect to find the influence and 'members' of the church of the devil everywhere.  I had multiple thoughts that were all placed in the same post.
Absolutely, that's the whole point.  I know many active and faithful members who have been misled.  The problem is that those who are misled often intentionally spread their misguided beliefs to others, because they do not see their beliefs as misguided.  When the Lord looks at them and tells them "I know you not", do you think he considers them to be part of the Church of the Lamb of God, or the church of the devil?

I think most of us (myself included) have not tried to interpret passages such as the parable of the 10 virgins through the lens of 1 Ne 14:10.  In the Church it is really rare for us to split things so dichotomously, however, that is exactly how Nephi does it when he teaches that there are only two churches.  This distinction is much different than the distinctions we have come to understand through the revelation recorded in D&C 76.  With each spiritually significant decision we make, we either move towards light or towards darkness.  What if we consider the parable of the wheat and tares through this lens, would you view that differently?

(Link)

Considering the above, is it unreasonable to assume that at least some of the 5 foolish virgins either directly or indirectly had spread their foolishness to others?  That perhaps some of the 5 started out okay but were misled to believe they didn't need to bring oil because one of their foolish 'friends' told them it would be fine?  It seems clear to me that in both parables, ultimately, the unfaithful are cast out/burned.  It should go without saying, but just to make sure, none of this should be interpreted to suggest the misled will not inherit a kingdom of glory.

I think it is important to consider that (despite the fact that adherents may deny it) in reality, secularism and its modern associates are religions.  These religions are proselytized by their members.

I think it is not too farfetched to assume that Nephi intended the word "church" to include religious adherents, which would have included the worship of false gods and idols (in the myriad forms in which they present in society).

I think that the influence of the church of the devil is found wherever the philosophies of men are mingled with scripture.  It is most evident and explicit when such a mixture is used aggressively against the truth.  One way we frequently see this is when individuals (especially secular adherents) recite the passage, "Judge not, that ye be not judged"; while they may invoke scripture, usually, the true intention is to justify and coerce acquiescence to sin and evil.

Consider the parable of the ten virgins.  All ten knew of the bridegroom, were looking forward to his coming, and wanted to join him.  How could it be that, despite all being aware of his coming, only five of the virgins knew to have the oil and the other five didn't?  They all knew enough to have a lamp in the first place, enough to be there waiting, and even enough to recognize the call to go out to meet the bridegroom.  If they were aware of all that, it seems to me the only thing that could have impeded their preparation would be an "eat, drink, and be merry" attitude.  In the end, from the perspective of the bridegroom, would these five foolish virgins have been of the Church of God, or the church of the devil?  Who do the ten virgins represent? 

Perhaps, sadly, members of the church of the devil, and its influence, can be found everywhere in society, even mingling among the members of the Lord's Church.

Interesting.  This gave me food for thought.
I had thought of these different analogies as separate metaphors.  But the way you present them, they appear to be gradual stages of apostasy.
The five foolish are the most innocent/naive (concerning spiritual things) which may have contributed to their foolishness.
Then the wheats and tares analogy would be the next stage.  An initially foolish person gradually goes toward being a tare.  They are initially led.  Then they come to accept/embrace false doctrine.
The third stage is when they come to reject the true faith, and they lie in wait to deceive.
I recall a certain former participant on this forum (she may have been before you joined) who was a convert, but carried with her some of her old belief system and tried to merge it with her new found faith.
What she eventually had to face was that some things that simply would not merge.  At some point, she had to make a decision which was true.  More often than not, she chose the old beliefs.
At first, she (I believe rather innocently) tried to fit the square peg into the round hole in her contributions to this forum as well as in Sunday School (based on her accounts).
At some point a crisis happened at church.  she was offended.  And frankly, I would have been offended as well had I been in her shoes.  But instead of recognizing that people get things wrong no matter what faith one professes, she ended up blaming the Church.
Eventually, she found herself losing her faith.  I had no further contact after that.  
While I don't have any additional account, the natural pattern is for her to become a critic of the Church.  She actually was a critic without realizing it -- even when she was a recent convert.  The only question is whether she is a critic inside the Church or outside.
Why is this the natural pattern?  She had no humility.  In her mind, she already knew what was true.  She felt it was her job to get the Faith to change, rather than to realign her ideas to fit the revealed word of God.
I get the sense that initially she may have been fine with simply keeping it to herself and thinking "I just see it differently." And that, I hope, is what most of us should be doing.  But at some point, we need to align our mind with the mind of God.  She never thought she needed to .  So all it took was one crisis and she was gone.

Yes, sadly it is.  😥  I captured that screenshot myself and personally researched to discover that the second commenter is a member who was attending BYU last year.  The tweets were still up last I checked.

I think it is important to consider that (despite the fact that adherents may deny it) in reality, secularism and its modern associates are religions.  These religions are proselytized by their members.

I think it is not too farfetched to assume that Nephi intended the word "church" to include religious adherents, which would have included the worship of false gods and idols (in the myriad forms in which they present in society).

I think that the influence of the church of the devil is found wherever the philosophies of men are mingled with scripture.  It is most evident and explicit when such a mixture is used aggressively against the truth.  One way we frequently see this is when individuals (especially secular adherents) recite the passage, "Judge not, that ye be not judged"; while they may invoke scripture, usually, the true intention is to justify and coerce acquiescence to sin and evil.

Consider the parable of the ten virgins.  All ten knew of the bridegroom, were looking forward to his coming, and wanted to join him.  How could it be that, despite all being aware of his coming, only five of the virgins knew to have the oil and the other five didn't?  They all knew enough to have a lamp in the first place, enough to be there waiting, and even enough to recognize the call to go out to meet the bridegroom.  If they were aware of all that, it seems to me the only thing that could have impeded their preparation would be an "eat, drink, and be merry" attitude.  In the end, from the perspective of the bridegroom, would these five foolish virgins have been of the Church of God, or the church of the devil?  Who do the ten virgins represent? 

Perhaps, sadly, members of the church of the devil, and its influence, can be found everywhere in society, even mingling among the members of the Lord's Church.

I think it is important to consider that (despite the fact that adherents may deny it) in reality, secularism and its modern associates are religions.  These religions are proselytized by their members.

I think it is not too farfetched to assume that Nephi intended the word "church" to include religious adherents, which would have included the worship of false gods and idols (in the myriad forms in which they present in society).

I think that the influence of the church of the devil is found wherever the philosophies of men are mingled with scripture.  It is most evident and explicit when such a mixture is used aggressively against the truth.  One way we frequently see this is when individuals (especially secular adherents) recite the passage, "Judge not, that ye be not judged"; while they may invoke scripture, usually, the true intention is to justify and coerce acquiescence to sin and evil.

Consider the parable of the ten virgins.  All ten knew of the bridegroom, were looking forward to his coming, and wanted to join him.  How could it be that, despite all being aware of his coming, only five of the virgins knew to have the oil and the other five didn't?  They all knew enough to have a lamp in the first place, enough to be there waiting, and even enough to recognize the call to go out to meet the bridegroom.  If they were aware of all that, it seems to me the only thing that could have impeded their preparation would be an "eat, drink, and be merry" attitude.  In the end, from the perspective of the bridegroom, would these five foolish virgins have been of the Church of God, or the church of the devil?  Who do the ten virgins represent? 

Perhaps, sadly, members of the church of the devil, and its influence, can be found everywhere in society, even mingling among the members of the Lord's Church.

I was struggling whether to put this in the Roe v Wade thread or this thread.  I decided to put it here because, I'm not as concerned about the Roe v. Wade decision or its overturning as I am about the ideology that is now making itself known to us.  And it is much worse than we thought.
This particular post is NOT intended to center on abortion.  It is about this ideology.  Hence, it has to do with TGAAC that I believe is shoving its religious beliefs in our faces all in the name of tolerance and refusing any Christian from "shoving our religion in their faces."
The following link is a tweet from a Harvard Law Professor.
https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1540655708630302720
She says that because of the overturn, the people have every right to harass the justices at every turn.  She then goes on to repeat the tired line that LGBTQ and contraception are at risk again. I'm surprised she didn't mention interracial marriage.
If a Harvard Law Professor cannot tell the difference between banning abortion vs relinquishing federal authority of it to the states, then the entire legal system is going to be at risk.
LET ME REPEAT: This particular post is NOT intended to center on abortion.  It is about this ideology that is so blind that it takes "relinquishing authority" as being "authoritarian."
Am I going off the rocker calling this a sign of TGAAC?  Maybe.  But here's a litmus test.  If it is TGAAC, then it will manifest as being opposed to the Church of the Lamb.
Bad: Abortion, LGBTQ+, NAMBLA, "Freedom From Religion", Destruction of the Constitution, Mob rule, Libertine.
Good: Marriage, Family, God, the Constitution, Rule of Law, The Bill of Rights.
The movement isn't 100% there yet.  But from when I was a child to this day, the battle lines have been getting clearer, brighter, and broader.  If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, then I'm being prophetic.  If they are altered, then the earth has earned a reprieve from Armageddon for a season.

The Guide to the Scriptures, on the church website, states that the Church of the Devil is every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God.

"He grew up in the RLDS church but converted to the Utah-based LDS church about eight years ago."
This is, in my view, the most important part of the article.  I'm sure if he donates or lends it to the Church, additional verification will be done.

There are multiple advantages to the answer being unknown.  Two are:
1.  If it were to be revealed that life begins at birth, sadly even more members of the Church would use that to justify abortion.
2.  If it were to be revealed that life begins at conception, abortion would be considered "like until murder" in a much more strict sense and repentance for it during this life would become even more complicated.
The ambiguity makes it easier for the Lord to both grant mercy to those who will sin in ignorance and to preserve those who would be tempted to justify.  I think, perhaps for these and other reasons, the Lord, in his wisdom, has chosen not to reveal this.

A sin in ignorance is much easier to repent for than the opposite; consider King Lamoni & his father, especially compared to Cain.  Having the sure knowledge that you murdered a child of God would not be advantageous if you knew it while doing it.  Not going to claim to know the Lord's specific reasons, but it is evident from the scriptures that He does it, sometimes even when the individuals in question would never again dwindle in unbelief.  Other times He intentionally speaks in ways that many will not understand, and also not be responsible (parables, sure, but also Isaiah comes to mind).  Anyway, just some thoughts.

There are multiple advantages to the answer being unknown.  Two are:
1.  If it were to be revealed that life begins at birth, sadly even more members of the Church would use that to justify abortion.
2.  If it were to be revealed that life begins at conception, abortion would be considered "like until murder" in a much more strict sense and repentance for it during this life would become even more complicated.
The ambiguity makes it easier for the Lord to both grant mercy to those who will sin in ignorance and to preserve those who would be tempted to justify.  I think, perhaps for these and other reasons, the Lord, in his wisdom, has chosen not to reveal this.

I have considered this passage as well.  What would we gain from knowing the answer?
Also, the Voice of the Lord could be the Holy Spirit speaking by divine investiture of authority (similar to the angel in the Book of Revelation), and could have received instructions in advance.
I don't have a for sure opinion either way other than that I think the knowledge, while interesting, would probably not be very useful.

A sin in ignorance is much easier to repent for than the opposite; consider King Lamoni & his father, especially compared to Cain.  Having the sure knowledge that you murdered a child of God would not be advantageous if you knew it while doing it.  Not going to claim to know the Lord's specific reasons, but it is evident from the scriptures that He does it, sometimes even when the individuals in question would never again dwindle in unbelief.  Other times He intentionally speaks in ways that many will not understand, and also not be responsible (parables, sure, but also Isaiah comes to mind).  Anyway, just some thoughts.

There are multiple advantages to the answer being unknown.  Two are:
1.  If it were to be revealed that life begins at birth, sadly even more members of the Church would use that to justify abortion.
2.  If it were to be revealed that life begins at conception, abortion would be considered "like until murder" in a much more strict sense and repentance for it during this life would become even more complicated.
The ambiguity makes it easier for the Lord to both grant mercy to those who will sin in ignorance and to preserve those who would be tempted to justify.  I think, perhaps for these and other reasons, the Lord, in his wisdom, has chosen not to reveal this.

I have considered this passage as well.  What would we gain from knowing the answer?
Also, the Voice of the Lord could be the Holy Spirit speaking by divine investiture of authority (similar to the angel in the Book of Revelation), and could have received instructions in advance.
I don't have a for sure opinion either way other than that I think the knowledge, while interesting, would probably not be very useful.

There are multiple advantages to the answer being unknown.  Two are:
1.  If it were to be revealed that life begins at birth, sadly even more members of the Church would use that to justify abortion.
2.  If it were to be revealed that life begins at conception, abortion would be considered "like until murder" in a much more strict sense and repentance for it during this life would become even more complicated.
The ambiguity makes it easier for the Lord to both grant mercy to those who will sin in ignorance and to preserve those who would be tempted to justify.  I think, perhaps for these and other reasons, the Lord, in his wisdom, has chosen not to reveal this.

I have considered this passage as well.  What would we gain from knowing the answer?
Also, the Voice of the Lord could be the Holy Spirit speaking by divine investiture of authority (similar to the angel in the Book of Revelation), and could have received instructions in advance.
I don't have a for sure opinion either way other than that I think the knowledge, while interesting, would probably not be very useful.

I have considered this passage as well.  What would we gain from knowing the answer?
Also, the Voice of the Lord could be the Holy Spirit speaking by divine investiture of authority (similar to the angel in the Book of Revelation), and could have received instructions in advance.
I don't have a for sure opinion either way other than that I think the knowledge, while interesting, would probably not be very useful.